In Defense of What?

Who said what others do is ok? I just think we shouldn’t crawl into their gutter and be like them. Let God deal with bullies … unless your name is David and you have five smooth stones!

in spite of my own personal frustrations over this matter, that we should just leave Lou alone. There is no way to address an issue with someone who refuses to interact, and apparently has no desire for resolution or restoration. I’m in the same situation as those who have tried to comment on Lou’s blog and contact him via email, only to have comments ignored or removed. What is a person supposed to do about that? Pursue it? Leave it alone? Break confidences by publishing private emails and messages to ”prove’ one’s case?

IMO, when you can’t resolve a problem, especially with the limitations of internet ‘relationships’, I don’t see any other recourse than to walk away. Scripture calls for us to separate from disobedient brethren. Even though error needs to be addressed, especially public error, the way we go about it can sometimes feed the fire instead of putting it out.

Those who don’t know or care about brethren engaging unBiblical conduct will not be convinced by this thread. So it quickly becomes pointless and the collateral damage will eventually begin to pile up.

I don’t want to say “if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas” or “if you get down in the mud, most of it ends up on you” etc… because Lou is not a dog or a pig or a mud wrestler. But- if we react with the same tactics and tone as those with whom we differ, what exactly are we complaining about?

It should be grievous and heartbreaking when we have to call someone out or separate from error. Our pride causes us to feel personally injured and affronted, and our desire to be vindicated causes us to act selfishly and without pity. If we are truly to seek the good of the brethren, even someone who seems unreasonable and confrontational, compassion and humility should guide our actions. None of us have that aspect of Biblical character nailed down by a long shot, especially yours truly. However, this is a great opportunity for each of us to examine how to handle this kind of situation in a way that benefits everyone, including Lou.

1. 
   Tyler, I’m not saying that others should strictly follow my example or…
   
   What I said was not meant to pressure others into revealing who you really are, a la the end of a Scooby-Doo episode. I understand why others do things they do. I have always felt that being transparent with one’s identity in these settings is a good means of maintaining accountability. We had this discussion here when the site first got off the ground, and not everyone agreed with me then. That’s fine. I was simply explaining why I do what I do.


2. 
   Dr. Straub- I didn’t start this thread. I don’t obsess with X. I tend to agree with you, generally. It seemed evident to me, though, that some may give more credibility to X than I believe X deserves. But sometimes, what seems evident to some isn’t to others. My intention was only to aid in providing some clarity. I don’t intend to pursue this any further.


3. 
   About what Susan and Straub are saying about lying down with dogs, fleas, etc… I understand. From my participation on SI and blog discussions over the years, I have been linked by name with KJV only extreme Fundamentalist demagogues, accused of being a closet child predator, and identified as a leader of the Effort To Bring Down Fundamental Christianity As We Know It (and I am not exaggerating on any of those this time). I haven’t always attempted to defend myself against all those accusations. At the same time, there are times where things like this thread (football tackling illustrations aside) can be appropriate. I don’t know how appropriate it would be to go much further, but there you go.

I got your point. I was having a bit of fun. No worries!

I have been linked by name with KJV only extreme Fundamentalist demagogues, accused of being a closet child predator, and identified as a leader of the Effort To Bring Down Fundamental Christianity As We Know It

For what it’s worth, I don’t believe you’re a malevolent force, conspiring to usher in a new period of darkness and despair for fundamentalists … How would any of us find time for that, anyway?

[Greg Linscott]

1. About what Susan and Straub are saying about lying down with dogs, fleas, etc… I understand. From my participation on SI and blog discussions over the years, I have been linked by name with KJV only extreme Fundamentalist demagogues, accused of being a closet child predator, and identified as a leader of the Effort To Bring Down Fundamental Christianity As We Know It (and I am not exaggerating on any of those this time). I haven’t always attempted to defend myself against all those accusations. At the same time, there are times where things like this thread (football tackling illustrations aside) can be appropriate. I don’t know how appropriate it would be to go much further, but there you go.

Ditto that- many of my comments on the Phelps threads were taken out of context and used to imply that I thought girls who were victimized by older men were ‘asking for it’ or ‘deserved it’. I received dozens of vicious emails, some saying that they hoped my children were raped and killed because I would be getting a taste of my own medicine. A few said that I must have been or still am the victim of abuse and that my family should be investigated.

What do you say to people like that? They are just flat out NUTS, as in Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. If they had a problem with what I said, they could have all the threads for context, they could have contacted me and asked if I really meant my comments to be taken that way… but they weren’t interested in truth. They enjoy the carnage, which IMO makes them part of the problem.

In my dealings with Lou, I got the same feeling, that he wasn’t interested in the truth, and he enjoys conflict and chaos. He has posted on his blog about the SI mod team, including me by name. For instance, he has at least once stated that we were all Calvinists. I’ve said that I’m not allergic to Calvinism/Calvinists, but I’ve never considered myself to be a Calvinist, and I don’t think I’ve ever commented on a thread about Calvinism. I’m on the mod team, and I don’t even know who is and who isn’t a Calvinist. He just flat out made that up. And that’s assuming that it is even appropriate to use the word “Calvinist” as an epithet. I don’t think a moderate view of Calvinism is a bad thing, so … I’m obviously going to hell in a handbasket?

At least Lou has the guts to attack people publicly. I’ve been sent scathing messages via PM and email, questioning my sanity and my ancestry. I’ve been told that I’m a disgrace to Christ, to my church, and to my husband. That I should not be on the moderating team at all because I’m a female. Blahblahblah. Again- what could I possibly say in my defense that would even make a dent, especially when the accusations themselves don’t even make sense? When I have responded to those emails, asking specifically what I had said that they felt deserved their condemnation, they didn’t respond.

Lou has a schtick, and he’s happy with it. I personally think it his blog has an unBiblical focus and demeanor, and I don’t know why others who I think are good, sensible people would tolerate and even support what he is doing. I’ve done all I can do to address those people and those issues without crossing my own personal line of propriety. I feel I have no choice but to leave him and his followers alone.

You wrote:

That I should not be on the moderating team at all because I’m a female

Have you not seen this verse:

“A woman shalt not be a moderator for a blog - it is an abomination unto God.”

It can be found in Eisegesis 4:3.

–––––––––––––––––––

I am not promoting women in the ministry - put the tomahawks away!

Alex, I am finally able to sit down and address your posts.

1. By calling you reasonable, I simply meant that I find much of what you say to be thought through. Even when I disagree, I can tell it isn’t like dealing with Lou. It wasn’t meant as offensive at all, nor to posture against you. I was not implying a loss of reason at all. There was really no need for this reaction on your part.

2. As for ad hominem, which of us accused others of being baby popes wanting to shut up the one was “luthoresque”?

3. As for my point that he ignores comments that point out his error (intentional or not), multiple people on here have said the exact same thing. If the testimony of so many are in agreement on this point, well you will have to decide for yourself if that is enough.

4. As for samplings of untrue things, you will accept the testimony of many on here of the same thing or not.

5. I understand you are not one who believes in LS. I believe it is the gospel and those who are not of this camp do what you accuse LS folk of.

6. As for failure, I am talking about the fundamentalism brand that practices and actually believes in secondary (or more) separation. It is only a brand. It is a spin off of what was fundamentalism. The significance of a person’s ministry cannot be judged by man, so that point isn’t helpful to anything.

7. As for the word doc, I don’t have any desire to get it off my chest. Lou can do as he wants on his blog. I want him to continue his posts, his antiLS “exegesis”, and his antics that have seen him banned from site after site. He is proof of my 6th point.

[Alex Guggenheim]

[James K]

Mike, I am referring to how they divide up the person of Jesus. Somehow, they want Lord to mean God and not master. What exactly do they think God means? To argue that you can deny a fundamental truth to the person of Jesus at conversion is a reflection of bad theology.

James

While you claim Lou (or anyone else you have in mind) does not understand Lordship salvation, you obviously do not understand their argument or you would not make this assertion that God is taught as not being authoritative or master by those opposing Lordship salvation.

Alex, I do understand their argument.

Here is a sample:

http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2011/04/what-is-lordship-salvation-and-why-does.html#comment-form

Comment on 4-29-11 @ 9:47 AM

When asked about Rom 10:9, we are told that he has a major chapter in his book on that. He said:

“Dr. Charles C. Ryrie asks: “Do these verses [Romans 10:9-10] mean that one must confess Jesus as Master of his life in order to be saved … is Paul saying in this passage that in order to be saved a person must receive Christ as the Sovereign of the years of his life on earth?” [SGS, pp.70-71.] No! Romans 10:9-10 does not demand a personal upfront commitment to Jesus as Master of life for salvation! This passage does not require “unconditional surrender” to the lordship of Christ in order to be saved. Romans 10:9 requires a confession—literally “to speak the same thing”— that Jesus Christ is Lord, that Jesus is deity. (IDOTG, p. 198).”

So he favorably quoted Ryrie, who believes “Lord” in this verse has to do with Jesus being deity (God). That is at the same time NOT an admission that Jesus is “Sovereign” or “Master” of his life. Apparently Lou Ryrie doesn’t know what Lord or God means. Again, my point was spot on, with both an example from Lou’s book, who also included Ryrie. Two birds with one stone. Now, since that was my point, and you said I didn’t understand them, and then I gave you the proof, I am content to not spend more time on this.

This is an attempt to carve up the person of Jesus into palatable portions. The wicked heart of man doesn’t want Jesus as Lord. Without Jesus as Lord, there is no salvation.

[Alex Guggenheim]

[James K]

The very fact that he had to go back and revise his book after interacting with one of TMS professors about the issue is proof he was off.

Allow me to expand on this point a bit.

Should be applied to JMac who has revised his original TGATJ twice now. Not to mention two other major works on LS. Sure, Lou was not real solid on some points but made the corrections for a much stronger polemic in the revised and expanded edition. I suspect that the interactions and feedback Lou got from the first edition is what gave rise to the revisions which demonstrates something about Lou which is very foreign to the claims about him being unmovable and unreasonable.

I applaud the person who is willing to examine their beliefs, and revise if needed when more clarification is available.

One more thing that is common with respect to Lou and LS though is that he wants to lump it all in together with calvinism, specifically the calvinist brand with has regeneration prior to faith. That is simply untrue and ignorant. I understand not being calvinist (I am not one), and I understand opposing regeneration prior to faith (I don’t believe it either), but to indicate that is driving LS is buffoonery.

Behold this article …